Great article! I really think it sets an excellent standard for us to all aspire to and work at.
I recently discovered a downside to hedging and being vulnerable in a public forum. In responding to a blog post I made, a commenter claimed I had an important figure wrong by 2-4 fold. He’d used an adjustment that I thought was not applicable and rather than say ‘no your calculation is wrong’ I hedged by saying I wasn’t an expert in field x and could be explain what calculation he’d used and why. Unfortunately that exchange was used by a critic of EA as proof of my—and the movement’s a ‘ignorance’.
The moral of this story is, I suppose, we risk vulnerability to unsupportive critics by taking these standards. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile trade, and one that will lead to better discussion and a more productive community.
Great comment! Coming from a background of more mainstream altruistic circles, I’ve found appearing confident and avoiding hedging is an important aspect of leadership and inspiring others to join me in my goals.
I think one resolution for this trade-off is to adjust based on the subject matter. When making certain basic claims (e.g. the importance of the far future, giving a public speech about effective altruism), we might want to err on the side of confidence, but when making more tenuous claims (e.g. regarding the effectiveness of Against Malaria Foundation versus the effectiveness of GiveDirectly), we might want to err on the side of hedging.
Another resolution is to try to come off as both confident and hedging. This is easier in person when we can communicate confidence with our tone and body language, but hedge with our language. It seems difficult to pull off online.
I’d be interested in hearing other ways to best handle this tradeoff.
Great article! I really think it sets an excellent standard for us to all aspire to and work at.
I recently discovered a downside to hedging and being vulnerable in a public forum. In responding to a blog post I made, a commenter claimed I had an important figure wrong by 2-4 fold. He’d used an adjustment that I thought was not applicable and rather than say ‘no your calculation is wrong’ I hedged by saying I wasn’t an expert in field x and could be explain what calculation he’d used and why. Unfortunately that exchange was used by a critic of EA as proof of my—and the movement’s a ‘ignorance’.
The moral of this story is, I suppose, we risk vulnerability to unsupportive critics by taking these standards. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile trade, and one that will lead to better discussion and a more productive community.
Great comment! Coming from a background of more mainstream altruistic circles, I’ve found appearing confident and avoiding hedging is an important aspect of leadership and inspiring others to join me in my goals.
I think one resolution for this trade-off is to adjust based on the subject matter. When making certain basic claims (e.g. the importance of the far future, giving a public speech about effective altruism), we might want to err on the side of confidence, but when making more tenuous claims (e.g. regarding the effectiveness of Against Malaria Foundation versus the effectiveness of GiveDirectly), we might want to err on the side of hedging.
Another resolution is to try to come off as both confident and hedging. This is easier in person when we can communicate confidence with our tone and body language, but hedge with our language. It seems difficult to pull off online.
I’d be interested in hearing other ways to best handle this tradeoff.
I’d accept there’s some tradeoff here, but I’d hope it’s possible to defend your reasoning while being sufficiently supportive.